• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gun control group submits petitions for Maine ballot measure

those groups tend to be made up of control freak harpies and busy bodies of the worst kind. Children have become the last refuge of the fascist.


I will predict that if Maine passes such a stupid law (and unlike a federal requirement, a state law is far less likely to be struck down as unconstitutional) I will state that within 5 years those twits pushing this law will demand more "reasonable" controls when their current demands do NOTHING to decrease crime in a relatively crime free state

I can't remember which state it was, Connecticut maybe, where they blamed guns on violence and passed a stringent gun control scheme. It also coincided with major war on a gang violence due to a child being shot. And of course the gang was shut down quickly. And crime rates dropped...specifically murder. Sigh.


Yep:

Hartford gangs: Fatal 1994 Shooting Of Girl, 7, Drove War On Hartford Gang Violence - Hartford Courant
 
There won't be a republic of texas.

And I would have zero issue if the feds went Abraham Lincoln on your ass if you even tried.
Time will tell, there already was one once, the Only State that can make that claim, and if the circumstances were such that in the best interests of Texas they left the Union there would be little anyone could do to stop them. Now is not that time, but who knows what tomorrow will bring.

Good luck with that, you might want to look at the numbers of those serving that are from here and realize we have the largest military base that the US has, not to mention Naval and Air Force bases. We are also a huge weapons producing state, helicopters and fighters, have a major infrastructure already in place and lots of high tech companies. We also have oil and natural gas and all the beef we can eat. We have fisheries and a coast with a major port of call. Texas has lots of resources and the people to utilize them, not to mention a can do attitude and a ingrained love for our State. We have a saying: Don't Mess With Texas, it is good advice to anyone that would attempt to force the People of Texas to go against their own will. So if that day ever did come, I would think long and hard about using Force, the result would be on the head of the oppressor not the one forced to defend themselves.
View attachment 67196163
 
Time will tell, there already was one once, the Only State that can make that claim, and if the circumstances were such that in the best interests of Texas they left the Union there would be little anyone could do to stop them. Now is not that time, but who knows what tomorrow will bring.

Good luck with that, you might want to look at the numbers of those serving that are from here and realize we have the largest military base that the US has, not to mention Naval and Air Force bases. We are also a huge weapons producing state, helicopters and fighters, have a major infrastructure already in place and lots of high tech companies. We also have oil and natural gas and all the beef we can eat. We have fisheries and a coast with a major port of call. Texas has lots of resources and the people to utilize them, not to mention a can do attitude and a ingrained love for our State. We have a saying: Don't Mess With Texas, it is good advice to anyone that would attempt to force the People of Texas to go against their own will. So if that day ever did come, I would think long and hard about using Force, the result would be on the head of the oppressor not the one forced to defend themselves.
View attachment 67196163

The Union fought with its hands tied behind its back and the South still had its ass kicked.

Let it be. It ain't happening.

And your manufacturing capabilities are null because the North can mobilize extremely fast. Anyways, have fun with your FANTASIES.

Maybe we can agree on something else some other time.
 
Time will tell, there already was one once, the Only State that can make that claim, and if the circumstances were such that in the best interests of Texas they left the Union there would be little anyone could do to stop them. Now is not that time, but who knows what tomorrow will bring.

Good luck with that, you might want to look at the numbers of those serving that are from here and realize we have the largest military base that the US has, not to mention Naval and Air Force bases. We are also a huge weapons producing state, helicopters and fighters, have a major infrastructure already in place and lots of high tech companies. We also have oil and natural gas and all the beef we can eat. We have fisheries and a coast with a major port of call. Texas has lots of resources and the people to utilize them, not to mention a can do attitude and a ingrained love for our State. We have a saying: Don't Mess With Texas, it is good advice to anyone that would attempt to force the People of Texas to go against their own will. So if that day ever did come, I would think long and hard about using Force, the result would be on the head of the oppressor not the one forced to defend themselves.
View attachment 67196163

They have some pretty hot wimminz too.
 
The Union fought with its hands tied behind its back and the South still had its ass kicked.

Let it be. It ain't happening.

And your manufacturing capabilities are null because the North can mobilize extremely fast. Anyways, have fun with your FANTASIES.

Maybe we can agree on something else some other time.
I never said it was my Fantasy or that Texas needed to do so at this time. You seem to forget that if the need did arise it would probably be due to the fact that the North could no longer govern, so much for you major reaction from the North. The North did not fight with any hands tied behind their back, where ever you are getting your "history" I would suggest you find a better source.
 
The state of Maine can do whatever they want in regard to guns. The 2nd Amendment restricts the federal government, not the states.
Not true. States cannot usurp the BOR. Where did you get that idea?
 
Google "Bill of Rights Incorporation." Better yet, let me Google that for you.

Without clicking on your link. Are you saying a state could outlaw religious freedom? Don't be silly.

I looked up the term. I don't think it means what you think it does. ;) It has nothing to do with usurping the BOR.
 
Last edited:
I grew up during part of my youth in Rumford Maine. I used to take my .30-30 rifle to school everyday during hunting season and keep it in Mr. Curry's office. (principle)
 
Without clicking on your link. Are you saying a state could outlaw religious freedom? Don't be silly.

The link is just a pre-Googled page for you to find the links to information to answer your questions, including the one you just asked.

I would never (NEVER) put a link on here or anywhere that would harm anyone's computer. Just in case that was a concern.
 
The link is just a pre-Googled page for you to find the links to information to answer your questions, including the one you just asked.
I do not click on "let me google that" links.

Besides, you are wrong, BOR incorporation doesn't mean what you think it does. It means states and local governments can adopt portions of the BOR to their laws, it doesn't mean they can usurp the BOR.
 
I do not click on "let me google that" links.

Besides, you are wrong, BOR incorporation doesn't mean what you think it does. It means states and local governments can adopt portions of the BOR to their laws, it doesn't mean they can usurp the BOR.

Fine. Don't click on it.

You have no idea what I think, nor do you know what you are talking about at all, regarding this issue. That was why I gave you the link.
 
Fine. Don't click on it.

You have no idea what I think, nor do you know what you are talking about at all, regarding this issue. That was why I gave you the link.
Calm down, we're just having a conversation. I looked it up on my own. You are wrong. Feel free to make your case.
 
I'm calm. Also, I see no reason to make a case for a point I didn't make.

you are the more correct of the two pro rights advocates in this discussion The bill of rights was intended ONLY to prevent the federal government acting in areas that the founders NEVER intended the federal government to act within
 
you are the more correct of the two pro rights advocates in this discussion The bill of rights was intended ONLY to prevent the federal government acting in areas that the founders NEVER intended the federal government to act within

States cannot usurp the Constitution. They most certainly cannot "do whatever they want" with gun laws.
 
How does that work out in states like Mass & Maryland & DC ?

Leftists ignore the constitution all the time, and SCOTUS let's them get away with it. That doesn't mean the spirit and intention of the constitution doesn't exist. The tenth amendment is pretty explicit. :shrug:
 
States cannot usurp the Constitution. They most certainly cannot "do whatever they want" with gun laws.

well they could until McDonald and many have ignored McDonald. they can do what they want until the Supreme court says otherwise
 
Leftists ignore the constitution all the time, and SCOTUS let's them get away with it. That doesn't mean the spirit and intention of the constitution doesn't exist. The tenth amendment is pretty explicit. :shrug:

the biggest problem is that leftist justices see the constitution as an obstacle to the socialist goals they were appointed to advance and "conservative" justices are afraid to create upheaval by throwing out unconstitutional crap that have become part of society
 
Back
Top Bottom